DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RUNGTA MINES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.801&802/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-1(3), Kolkata …….........................................................……Appellant Vs. Rungta Mines Ltd..........................................……........……...…..…..Respondent 8A, Express Tower, 42A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata- 700017. [Pan: Aabcr6463N] Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Dutta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 20, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 15, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 31.05.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 22, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Facts & Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & The Same Have Been Heard Together, Therefore, These Are Being Adjudicated By This Common Order. Ita No.801/Kol/2023 Is Taken As The Lead Case. 2. Ita No.801/Kol/2023 – The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 92F of the Income Tax Act. He has also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. ITC Ltd. (2015) 64 taxman.com 2014 and therefore, has submitted that the impugned order of the CIT(A) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 7. On the other

DCIT CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RUNGTA MINES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.801&802/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-1(3), Kolkata …….........................................................……Appellant Vs. Rungta Mines Ltd..........................................……........……...…..…..Respondent 8A, Express Tower, 42A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata- 700017. [Pan: Aabcr6463N] Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Dutta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 20, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 15, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 31.05.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 22, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Facts & Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & The Same Have Been Heard Together, Therefore, These Are Being Adjudicated By This Common Order. Ita No.801/Kol/2023 Is Taken As The Lead Case. 2. Ita No.801/Kol/2023 – The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 92F of the Income Tax Act. He has also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. ITC Ltd. (2015) 64 taxman.com 2014 and therefore, has submitted that the impugned order of the CIT(A) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 7. On the other

ACIT, CC- 3(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HIMATSINGKA SEIDE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalit(Ss)A No.17/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of 10/24, Kumara Krupa Road, High Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- Grounds, Bangalore-560001. Xvi, Kolkata. (Pan: Aaach3507N) (Appellant) (Respondent) & It(Ss)A No.20/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent)

54,453/- made by the AO/TPO on account of inter corporate loan to the AE. 2) That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts & law by not allowing the method of determining the cost of funds plus credit spread as the most appropriate method in the facts of the case of the assessee determining on the basis of Comparable

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Transfer Pricing Guidelines 2010 supports this view in para 7.13 where it is explained that where higher credit rating of Associated Enterprise is due to a guarantee by another group member, such association positively enhances the profit making potential of that Associated Enterprise. We, therefore, find ourselves in agreement with the contention of the Page 27 of 41 I.T.A

M/S TATA GLOBAL BEVERAGES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2012-

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Transfer Pricing Guidelines 2010 supports this view in para 7.13 where it is explained that where higher credit rating of Associated Enterprise is due to a guarantee by another group member, such association positively enhances the profit making potential of that Associated Enterprise. We, therefore, find ourselves in agreement with the contention of the Page 27 of 41 I.T.A

ZAFAR IQBAL,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

section 54F(1)\nwhich says that \"net consideration\", in relation to the transfer of a capital\nasset, means the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a\nresult of the transfer of the capital asset as reduced by any expenditure\nincurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer.\nIn CIT vs. Miss Piroja C. Patel

DCIT, CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 92B and therefore the transfer pricing adjustment deserves to be deleted. The ld. AR has alternatively claimed that the corporate guarantee fee be benchmarked at 0.5% as suo motu offered by the appellant company. 4. After giving thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case, the provisions of law, and judicial precedents available on this subject; I find that

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

transfer pricing adjustment made for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Revenue’s common Ground no. 3 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 relating to the claim of compensation paid for obtaining limestone connected to mining activity: 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We find that this

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

transfer pricing adjustment made for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Revenue’s common Ground no. 3 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 relating to the claim of compensation paid for obtaining limestone connected to mining activity: 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We find that this

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

transfer pricing adjustment made for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Revenue’s common Ground no. 3 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 relating to the claim of compensation paid for obtaining limestone connected to mining activity: 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We find that this

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

transfer pricing adjustment made for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Revenue’s common Ground no. 3 for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 relating to the claim of compensation paid for obtaining limestone connected to mining activity: 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We find that this

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Transfer Pricing Regulation Accordingly, We are of the view that the first ground for confirming disallowance by CIT (A) that no independent documentary evidence had been furnished by assessee to show that the fact of actual services having been rendered to assessee and Nalco Pacific too could not substantiate the claim for provision of actual services with documentary evidence

M/S. TDK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),NADIA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1) , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16, is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Transfer Pricing Regulation Accordingly, We are of the view that the first ground for confirming disallowance by CIT (A) that no independent documentary evidence had been furnished by assessee to show that the fact of actual services having been rendered to assessee and Nalco Pacific too could not substantiate the claim for provision of actual services with documentary evidence

M/S. LINDE INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY BOC INDIA LIMITED),KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RANGE - 12, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 224/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/S. Linde India Limited,..........................Appellant (Formerly Boc India Limited) ‘Oxygen House’, P-43, Taratala Road, Kolkata-700088 [Pan: Aaacb2528H] -Vs.- Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax,..........Respondent Range-12, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel & Shri P. Jhunjhunwala, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 28, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 07, 2023 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz):- The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.11.2015 Passed Under Section 144C(5) Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act.

54,15,06,000 0.244% of the difference is 24,73,109/- the adjustment The total adjustment for purchase of raw material and sale of finished goods of Rs.5,23,17,724/- = (4,98,44,615/- + 24,73,109/-) is treated as Transfer Pricing Adjustment”. 9 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/s. Linde India Limited (formerly BOC India Limited

DIC INDIA LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 2084/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Dic India Limited,..................................Appellant Transport Depot Road, Kolkata-700088 [Pan: Aabcc0703C] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,......Respondent Circle-10(1), Aayakarbhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Akkaldudhwewala, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Hukumasema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

Section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In view of above we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Hence we allow assessee's ground." 25. Following the ratio laid down in the above decision rendered in appellant's own case and the given facts of the case, we uphold the application

M/S TDK INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS INDIA PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. -11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

54,93,154/- as arms length price for Intra Group Services. Accordingly, the final order was passed by the AO making the said addition. 6. Now the assessee is in appeal before us challenging the said confirmation of addition by DRP. 7. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material available on record, we find that the assessee

M/S TDK INDIA PVT. LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S EPCOS INDIA PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

54,93,154/-\nas arms length price for Intra Group Services. Accordingly, the final order was passed\nby the AO making the said addition.\n6.\nNow the assessee is in appeal before us challenging the said confirmation of\naddition by DRP.\n7.\nAfter hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material available on\nrecord, we find that the assessee

ORGA SYSTEM INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-7(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

54,50,560/- in the price as per books of account. 7. That the Transfer Pricing Officer(TPO) has grossly erred in computing the Arm's Length Price by taking in to account the operating profit percentage over total cost of Thirdware Solutions Limited being functionally different as its operational income includes activities in other Professional, Technical and Business Services

DCIT CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 80IE and further erred in facts and law in deleting the arms’ length price adjustment at Rs. 99,66,822/- made by TPO. 6. Contrary to that the Ld. A.R supports the impugned order thereby submitting that the assessee explained that for any inter-unit of transfer of tea leaves the company adopted the monthly average price method while